Cricket 1910

54 CRICKET : A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A p r i l i 4> 1 9 1 0 . way the principle by which a maximum was obtainable, for this had never been a subject of dispute. Unwittingly however, if not intentionally, the authorities swept this principle to the winds. Tbey decided that in future the positions should be determined by taking the proportion of points to the number of matches finished. Taken li'erally, the effect of this was that by winning one match only and drawiug the remainder a county could reach as high a percentage as if the whole of its matches had been won. Putting an extreme case, we can therefore get the following result:— Played Won Lost Drawn Pts. P’c’tage. “ A ” 20 ... 1 ... 0 ... 19 ... 1 ...100-00 “ B ” 20 ... 19 ... 1 ... 0 ... 18 ... 90-00 It is this untenable theory which has pro­ duced the many anomalies of which the present system has been guilty. Not only lias it completely falsified the meaning of “ a highest possible,” but it has enabled counties that have gaineda margin of wins over defeats in a small section of their matches to secure as high, and indeed a higher, per­ centage thin others with records far more brilliant. This was strikingly illustrated in the misplacing of Surrey and Sussex at the close of Jast season. At first sight it might seem that all neces­ sary reform would be achieved by taking the percentage of points scored in the number of games arranged instead of the games finished, but a little examination shows that this method must fail for lack of uniformity. The arithmetical effect of such a plan would be that where the wins exceed the losses a drawn game would be detrimental, but that where the losses exceed the wins it would be even more advantageous than it is at present. Precisely the same objection would apply if 2 points were awarded for a win an i one point for a draw, as anyone may discover by working out a test case. There is but one uniform method ol attaining the object in view, and that is to abolish “ points ” altogether and score by wins only. If we add a proportion of 1 lie games < 7 rawn—say one fourth or one third— to the number of games finished, and take the percentage of wins to the total so foun I, we have asystem in which Ihe draw will operatewith equal effect all down the list. Broadly speaking, its value will lie midway between a win and a loss. The following table shows the extreme and intermediate positions by the two alternatives suggested and by the M C.C. system, in the case of games i>ljycd. l-4th of l-3rd of draws draws M.C C. added, added, system. Lost Drawn P’c’tage P’c’tage P’c’tage None . None ... 100 ... 100 ... 100 , None ... Half ... 80 ... 75 ... 100 Ilalf ... None ... 50 ... 50 ... 0 0 ... 0 ...-100 Won All Half Half None By neither of these alternatives is there an nece=sity to deduct points for los-es, for the simple reason that a loss reduces the per­ centage automatically wi.liout anyrn ed for further penalty. Consequently the unsym- metrical “ minus ” quantity disappears alto­ gether. What is of main importance, however, is the preatly enhanced value which would attach to a win. It only remains to dispose of a very shadowy objection which is dictate 1 by the vagaries of our British dim ite. It will doubtless be urged that as the finishing of matches depends largely upon the weather, it is un iesirab’e that drawn games should be counted at all. To this there are seveial answers. 1. The chances of the weather are scared by all counties alike. 2. Fine weather and exceptional scoring produce quite as high a proportion of drawn games as wet weather. (Thus, in the very dry summer of 1899 forty per cent, of the matches were drawn, whereas in the very wet summer of 1907 only twenty-seven per cent, were drawn.) 3. The fact that there are certain counties who, season by season, draw their matches in greater excess than their opponents is strong evidence that rain is not the primary cause. 4. From 1892 to 1894, as already shcAvn, drawn games formed au integral part of the 16 matches which constituted the common basis of comparison between the counties. (No objection was ever taken to this system.) 5. So long as only three days are allotted to a first-class match it is desirable that the honours should go to tho=e sides which, by a combination of enterprising batting with effective bowling aud fielding, are able to win the highest pro- port’on of matches within three days. 6 . Even under the pr sent system, a county may be deprived of victory, saved from defeat, or robbed of the Championship solely by rain. The f>llowing table shows the percentages of the couuties in 1909 by the alternative systems suggested and by that of the M.C.C. Variations from the M.C.C. order are denoted by italics. Decimals are omitted except where necessary. Percentages. 1909 L. D. T’tl 2 8 26 6 24 10 26 16 26 7 l-4th draws M.C.C. added 30 10 21 1 18 8 22 4 20 5 19 5 16 20 77 55 50 40 39 9 5 0 0 80 ’ 71 64-8 50 6 U‘6 hU 52 ua U7 8 21 9 18 4 21 8 22 -14 39 - 27 32 -4 5 22 - 53 20 -5 5 17 -7 6 11 -85 6 l-3rd draws added 77 70 62 1*5 63 U1 51 4-2 U6 38 31 21 19 16 10 1. Kent... 2. Lancs. 3. Yorks. 4. Sussex 5. Surrey 6 . Middlesex. 6 7. Northants. 9 a ( Hants. ... 7 " ( Wores. ... 8 10. Notts. ... 6 11. Somerset.. 4 12. Warwick... 3 13. Leicester.. 3 14. Essex ... 2 15. Derbj’sliire 2 16. Gloucester. 1 One suggestion, in conclusion, as to the “ Two Division” scheme. Several of the counties have already stated their objections to it, 1 ut a possib’e compromise might be found by arranging two Leagues and one Cham| ionship. How ihe j lan would work may be seen by applying it by way of illus­ tration to the stason of 1910. The niue first counties in the Championship table of 1909 would form the First League and the remain­ ing >even ihe Second, each county playing every other in its own League. To compete for the Championship ea'.-h First League county should arrange extra matches with at lea&t two counties in the Second, aud each Sec nd League c mnty with at least four c unties in the First. Every county would thus play not less than twenty Champion­ ship matches. In the First League sixteen games would c »unt in both the League aud Championship, and four iu the Champion­ ship only. Iu the Second League twelve games would count in both the League and Championship and eirht in the Champion­ ship only. The \ oiuts to be observed are that m'lusion in the Second League would not preclude participation in the Champ ouship and that recourse to “ friendlies ” would be unnecessary. It is re.sonable to conclude that the competiti n in either League would be very keen aud would show greatly im­ proved “ gates,” which should find the means for defraying the expenses of the enlarged cards that in some instances would be necessary. The allocation of the counties to either League would in future seasons depend upon the positions which they occupied in the Championship of the pre­ vious year. CRICKET IN N EW ZE ALAN D . AUCKLAND v. OTAGO. Played at Auckland on February 11, 12, 14 and 15. PLUNKET SHIELD MATCH. Auckland won by an innings and 161 runs. Otago, after defeating Southlands by an innings and over 400 runs, were themselves severely beaten by Auckland, the holders of the Plunket Shield. Three players exceeded the hundred for Auckland, and only two failed to reach double-figures. Hemus made 109 out of 233 in 190 minutes, Keif 118 out of 210 in three hours, and Sale 121 out of 252 in 230 minutes: Hemus was missed when 53 and Relf when 72, but Sale gave no chance. Relf and Hemus added 170 for the second wicket, Brooke-Smith and Sale 100 for the sixth, and the latter and Mason 80 for the eighth. The best display for Otago was given by Macfarlane, who played a sound and stylish innings of 60, and added 54 for the sixth wicket with Hiddlestone. The gate receipts for the match were £250. Score and analysis :— A uckland . E. Ilorspool, c Ruther­ ford, b Fisher...........37 L. G. Hemus, c Ma­ cartney, b Macfar­ lane ........................109 A. E. Relf, c sub., b Macartney .......... 118 A. Hadden, b Downes 3 E. V. Sale, run out ...121 C. Oliff, b Macartney.. 4 W. Brooke - Smith, b Macartney ...........44 N. C. Sneddon, c Ma­ cartney, b Macfar­ lane .......................... 24 F. R. Mason, cMacart­ ney, b Macfarlane... 46 A.Anthony,cEckhold, b Siedeberg ...........37 F. Taylor, not out ... 17 Byes, &c............. 19 Total 79 63 233 261 273 283 3S3 433 5.3 579 O tago . First innings. G. C. Wilson, b R e lf........... 5 A. Eckhold, c Hadden, b Oliff .................................. 31 R. M. Rutherford, c Relf, b Hadden .......................... 4 II. G. Sideberg, b Relf ... 3S C. G. Macartney, b Relf ... 22 T. Macfarlane, b Oliff.......... 60 S. Hiddlestone, b Hadden 43 C Hopkins, b Oliff ........... 0 A. II. Fisher, lbw, b Hadden 10 A. Downes, b Hadden ... 17 W. M. Beal, not o u t ......... 1 Byes, &c.................... 6 Second innings, c Sale, b Taylor... 27 st Sale, b Brooke- Smith ...........14 b Hadden ...........38 b O liff.................. 3 cTaylor,b Brooke- Smith ......... 35 hit wkt, b Oliff... 10 ................ 1 18 lbw, b Mason b Hadden ... not out.......... b O liff.......... b O liff.......... Byes, &c. 1 \ 0 13 Total ...237 Total.......... 181 A uckland . O. M. R. W. Macartney 49 17 115 3 Downes ... 47 11 142 1 Fisher ... 39 12 98 1 Macfarlane 31 6 85 3 Siedeberg. 4 O. M. R. W. R utli er- ford ... 14 2 75 0 Hopkins.. 2 Relf .. .. Hadden . Oliff .. . Mason . Taylor . Sneddon 0 29 1 O tago . First innings. O. M. R. W. 35 12 69 3 21-3 5 25 9 9 4 1 H id d le - stone... 0 7 0 9 0 50 4 . 72 3 , 0 27 0 . 1 11 0 , 2 0 Second innings. O. M. R. W. ... 6 450 3 27 2 4 52 4 12 , 15-4 15 1 46 1 43 0 12 1 Brooke-Smith. Hadden bjw led three no-balls and Mason two. CRICKET IN SOUTH AFRICA. R hodesia v. M r . II. D. G. L eveson -G ower ’ s XI. —Played at Salisbury on March 30, 31 and April 1 and left drawn. Mr. Leveson-Gower’s XI. scored 379 (F. L. Fane, 103) and 22 for four wickets, and Rhodesia 207 and 304 for five wickets (Keigwin, 111), innings declared closed. Rhodesia followed *their innings.